689
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

This is actually why I prefer the Beyond to Impossible. Both command a premium, and the Impossible is so indistinguishable that it feels like a waste of money. The Beyond has a great taste, but is not exactly beef flavor. They smell like cat food to me before they're cooked, but I find myself craving the taste now and again because it is something unique.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah, that's super fair. Both have a place. Beyond is something different as a novelty if you already eat meat; I'd liken it to a non-vegan using agave over honey. For vegetarians/vegans, it's nice to have basically a 1:1 if you want it. Even for vegans and vegetarians, it's valid to prefer Beyond over that 1:1 replica. And for non-vegetarians trying to be more climate-conscious or a bit less unhealthy (Impossible is far from healthy – its saturated fat content, for example, is nearly as bad as ground beef's – but it's also less likely to give you colorectal etc. cancer), it's a reasonable choice.

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

There is absolutely a place for both products. Impossible did exactly what they set out to do in flavor and texture mimicry. It's the one I tried first as a meat eater and that's what got me to try Beyond and a few others.

I hear the complaints about the fat and sodium in the products, and while it sounds less than ideal due a vegan or vegetarian diet, it doesn't sound that bad for an omnivore, especially one that eats less veg. The great thing about them being a manufactured product is both of those things can change through product development. I remember reading that Impossible went through numerous revisions to stand up to Burger King's conveyor belt grill system.

I'm very excited for the future of these types of products.

this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
689 points (98.0% liked)

Climate

8624 readers
321 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS